What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today

Depends on when.  Anderssen was top dog before Steinitz formulated and codified the positional imbalances and even before Morphy, who in turn displaced Anderssen.  Steinitz was around before Nimzowitsch further refined strategic understanding.  Then Botvinnik and the other great Soviets further developed chess and injected some dynamism into the game.

Personally I think Staunton would be 2000, Anderssen 2100, Morphy 2300, and Steinitz 2350.  Maybe even that is optimistic.  This is assuming no further training.  Keep in mind their competition nowadays would have read My System, Alekhine's best Games, Karpov's Best Games, Kasparov n Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Dvoretsky books, and various endgame books thoroughly, resources that weren't around during the 19th century.  How could they defeat someone who thoroughly studied the positional sacrifice when they themselves don't know the compensation.

  If you don't value the long term potential of exploiting weak squares then of course rook takes bishop on the color opposite the pawn chain (especially a stonewall formation) then how would you defend against such sacs?  If you don't value prophylaxis then your opponent will follow his dangerous plan. 

I looked at some of those guys' games and while there are some gems overall they didn't seem that great, carelessly created weak color complexes in their play, not minding the opponent having a queenside pawn majority, capturing towards the center despite an endgame taking place, inappropriate counterattacks when the position calls for consolidating and minimizing one's concessions, etc. 

Morphy would have been rated 2512 and Steinitz would have been rated 2531.

Steinitz had some trouble against Chigorin, Lasker (the 19th century's undisputedly best player) toppled him yet would be  blown off the board by today's top class calculators.  Lasker sometimes played bad moves on purpose because of psychological reasons.  Top players today play psychological moves but don't gamble on a move they know is bad but rather would pick something rated +.80 instead of +1.00 if they think the second best move gives the opponent far more room to err given their disposition and style. 

Steinitz was overconfident in some bad and passive positions (Soviet Middlegame Technique mentions a cable match they had and Chigorin's concrete approach was correct) disregarding dynamics sometimes.  No modern player over 2000 does such a thing. 

To be an exact science, you have to make them all 2500 to start, since that's the grandmaster number. Then add whatever number pops into your head, like twelve, and you have Morphy's rating in the 19th century!

I'm sorry, TheGreatOogieBoogie, I was just joking about those numbers:)

I think you are somewhat underrating the old greats. However abysmal their strategy would sometimes be, it would be hard to deal with their tactical alertness. For what it's worth, I would guess that Philidor would be around 2200 as would be Staunton or Paulsen. Andersson at least 2350, Morphy or Steinitz more like 2400. But who knows?

TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:

Depends on when.  Anderssen was top dog before Steinitz formulated and codified the positional imbalances and even before Morphy, who in turn displaced Anderssen.  Steinitz was around before Nimzowitsch further refined strategic understanding.  Then Botvinnik and the other great Soviets further developed chess and injected some dynamism into the game.

Personally I think Staunton would be 2000, Anderssen 2100, Morphy 2300, and Steinitz 2350.  Maybe even that is optimistic.  This is assuming no further training.  Keep in mind their competition nowadays would have read My System, Alekhine's best Games, Karpov's Best Games, Kasparov n Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Dvoretsky books, and various endgame books thoroughly, resources that weren't around during the 19th century.  How could they defeat someone who thoroughly studied the positional sacrifice when they themselves don't know the compensation.

  If you don't value the long term potential of exploiting weak squares then of course rook takes bishop on the color opposite the pawn chain (especially a stonewall formation) then how would you defend against such sacs?  If you don't value prophylaxis then your opponent will follow his dangerous plan. 

I looked at some of those guys' games and while there are some gems overall they didn't seem that great, carelessly created weak color complexes in their play, not minding the opponent having a queenside pawn majority, capturing towards the center despite an endgame taking place, inappropriate counterattacks when the position calls for consolidating and minimizing one's concessions, etc. 

When I played through those very old games, indeed it's clear they were mostly just FM strength, with a few like Morphy who totally dominated their peers maybe in GM territory. But Capablanca was maybe the first Super GM (likely a real super GM by today's standards) of the 20th century due to his huge raw talent..although I read he was not particularly hard working.

What's so funny?

Adolf Anderssen seems bad,especially his immortal game. He was losing the whole game until the very end and played lower than a Class A strength today.

No better than 2600

Morphy's knowledge and intuitive understanding, if he were born in the late twentieth century and exposed to the developments in chess threory that have taken place since his death, would easily put him over 2900 Elo.

I would guess 2400.

the guy that fischer said would beat other top masters of his time, is a 2000 player

lol

A 1800 otb would not have a chance with Morphy, Anderssen and Steinitz, let alone Staunton. These players were geniuses. Let look at a very modern game from Staunton, BTW Fischer said of Staunton, he played very modern.   

Staunton will be crush every 1800 players, even with modern opening. A genius is a genius, no one under grandmaster can beat these past masters, they are too strong.

I guess you're right. Still I think they would have some trouble against modern openings like the Sicilian.

That is a much more reasonable assertion.

I read an interview with Kramnik where he said that Lasker was already a strong player by modern standards.  I think he estimated Steinitz to be around 2400 with Lasker around 2600. 

Edit: I found the interview he actually estimates Lasker as 2700!

"In my view Lasker is the pioneer of modern chess. When you look at Steinitz`s games, you understand that they have a smack of the past ages. And Lasker had a lot of games, which can be regarded as the games played by modern chess player. Lasker is the first link in a chain of "global" chess, where different elements of fight are taken into account. Steinitz put emphasis mainly on a certain element of position. For example, if he had the better pawn structure and a prospect to attack the king, he considered his advantage to be almost decisive. As to Lasker, he understood that there are different elements of a position, which balance one another. He realized that there are different kinds of advantage and that they may be converted one into another: tactical advantage changes into strategic one and vice versa.

I think Lasker is more "broad" chess player than Steinitz. By the way, it`s rather indicative that the world championship match between them in 1894 (to say nothing of the return match) turned out to be absolutely one-sided.

It seemed that two absolutely different in profundity of thought chess players were playing. Using modern estimation criteria we can say that one has rating about 2700 and the other 2400. That`s why Lasker gained such a clear-cut victory, literally "smashed" the opponent. I was deeply impressed by that match. I knew Steinitz to be a great chess player, but when I was examining his games, I saw a kind of massacre there. Honestly speaking, it was a culture shock for me; I`ve never seen such a great pull in world championships, as though it was not the match for the crown, but simultaneous display. Probably, Steinitz was already weakened by that moment, but not that much, he still showed quite good results in tournaments."

http://www.e3e5.com/article.php?id=1012

2850.

They would have access to the same materials.